Carrol ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Archer Todd, Kelley or Justin, please let Carrol know about this post from me, written by Hunterbear from the marxist at yahoogroups.com list. I long ago was addded to the "kill file" of Carrol's, for social democratic "trolls!" Heh.................................................. Come the Revolution, reading John Milton will be mandatory? Michael Pugliese
Michael: Please post! Thanks - Hunterbear
Professor Cox is quite right when he suggests that Jenghiz Khan et al. have frequently gotten a raw deal from history -- and to compare the Mongol leader with Hitler is flagrantly and cruelly denigrating to Jenghiz. I'll say a quick, corrective word on behalf of our cousins in the Gobi. As I outline the matter, the Grand Canyon of differences vis-a-vis Hitler / Nazism will be quite obvious.
Mongol social organization was classically and nomadically tribal [and tribalism is still a major component of the social scenery in Mongolia.] Among other things, this involves a cohesive network of kinship relationships, essentially democratic and egalitarian with communalistic dimensions -- and, traditionally, characterized by a hereditary [life] chief system. Jenghiz Khan [1162 - 1227], originally named Temuchin, unified the related tribes in the Lake Baikal and general Mongolian region into what was essentially a confederated One Big Tribe encompassing all of the foregoing tribal characteristics -- and one which remained very democratic with himself as the leading chief. None of this was, I reiterate, a totalitarian or even authoritarian structure in any sense -- and, as a traditional tribal chief, Jenghiz was certainly not a dictator.
In a series of extraordinary military and political moves -- motivated by adventure and booty / tribute -- he and his descendant successors conquered China and environs, much of the northern Middle East, western Siberia, all of Russia -- and moved very deeply into Europe. They would have conquered all of Europe had Ogadai Khan, then key chief, not died [1241.] Mongol tribal law required that all of Jenghiz's descendants return to Mongolia to pick the next chieftain. At that point the conquest -- then under the military leadership of Jenghiz's grandson, Batu -- stopped and the Mongols withdrew into Russia which, as the Golden Horde, they then held for more than three hundred years.
In the course of the Conquest, the Mongol leaders could be ruthless. If a jurisdiction did not heed their order to surrender, large numbers of the inhabitants were slain. If, on the other hand, the target surrendered, the people were well treated with virtually no changes in their life-style. The emergent Mongol "empire" was anything except totalitarian -- pervasive or otherwise: it imposed no Mongol culture -- including no religion, entertained no ideology of any kind, left the conquered people pretty much alone -- but it did systematically tax. And, in return, it provided protection for all of the people against any intruders.
Frankly, in a word, if the taxes were paid, no sweat.
The Mongols killed no one because of their race or ethnicity. In fact, the Mongols intermarried legally and freely and far and wide with those whom they conquered.
The vast Mongol "empire," never rooted in anything except traditional nomadic tribalism, eventually -- as was the case with the much smaller Toltec Empire of Meso-America [whose capital, Tula, was physically bigger than Rome] -- gradually returned to the old traditional tribalism as the Mongols [and Toltecs], perhaps sensing they were losing the traditional wild free life of the mountains and canyons and plains, went, as we Native people sometimes put it, "back to the blanket."
All best - Hunter Gray [Hunterbear] www.hunterbear.org